4.4 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of lymphovascular invasion in patients treated with radical cystectomy for bladder cancer

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.03.018

Keywords

Lymphovascular invasion; Bladder cancer; Radical cystectomy; Lymph node dissection; Metastasis; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is an important step in bladder cancer cell dissemination. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to assess the prognostic value of LVI in radical cystectomy (RC) specimens. Patients and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the last 10 years was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane libraries in July 2017. The analyses were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Results: We retrieved 65 studies (including 78,107 patients) evaluating the effect of LVI on oncologic outcomes in patients treated with RC. LVI was reported in 35.4% of patients. LVI was associated with disease recurrence (pooled hazard ratio [HR] = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.45-1.70) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) (pooled HR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.48-1.73) in all studies regardless of tumor stage and node status (pT1-4 pN0-2). LVI was associated with recurrence and CSM in patients with node-negative bladder cancer (BC). In patients with node negative BC, LVI rate increased and was associated with worse oncologic outcome. LVI had a lower but still significant association with disease recurrence and CSM in node-positive BC. Conclusions: LVI is a strong prognostic factor of worse prognosis in patients treated with RC for bladder cancer. This association is strongest in node-negative BC, but it is also in node-positive BC. LVI should be part of all pathological reporting and could provide additional information for treatment-decision making regarding adjuvant therapy after RC. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available